On January 10 2015 02:02 JinDesu wrote: For my understanding, Coulibaly was the third gunman at Charlie Hedbo, correct? They split up during the escape?
No. Coulibaly and the Kouachi brothers knew themselves, but only the brothers did the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Separately, Coulibaly killed a police officer the same day.
Ok that's very helpful for my understanding. So Coulibaly exposed himself after the event, I read somewhere earlier that he took the hostages to cover for the brothers - is that accurate?
Considering they knew each other and may (not confirmed) have been in contact via phone or something else, it is possible that Coulibaly tried to divert the forces chasing the brothers by taking hostages. It's not confirmed though, and since they're all dead we'll never know.
If they were in active contact, presumably it was by telephone, and authorities will be able to confirm this relatively easily by accessing the phones which, again presumably, will still be on the dead scum's bodies or amongst their other possessions.
I was talking about the reason why did Coulibaly took hostages
Well if you can actually confirm the fact that they were in contact, you can pretty confidently assume that that was at least a factor in Coulibaly's actions... What else would they have been discussing? ;p
"Hi Bro's, lovely day for some whackjob extremism, isn't it? What are you two up to? Oh? No way! I just shot some infidels and took some hostages too, what are the chances?"
On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote: So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly.
The paper takes everything and anything and tries to criticize it. Political lies, religious double standards, social issues. Everyone is criticized. There is always a shred of truth, but to be honest, I really dislike the publication. The government raises the idea of cutting costs of the education? You have a picture of him buttfucking a teacher (who says something sordid). The pope says literally anything? You have a priest getting a blow job from a kid and saying something vaguely related to the topic in question.
I understand the need for "counter-power", but truth to be told, most of the time, things are pretty OK in France, and we don't need such vulgar descriptions. By using systematically the most crude images for trivial topics (teachers are not going to get a raise this year? That's literally Francois Hollande buttfucking all of them) it reduces the effectiveness of the method when real serious topics come by. (Like, a terrorist attack for example?)
I prefer a more moderate (and constructive) critic when the problem is only moderate. Charlie is always in the extreme (and never constructive, apart from the fact that the topic gets discussed, but they don't offer any constructive criticism themselves).
On January 10 2015 02:14 OtherWorld wrote: According to LeMonde, an unrelated hostage situation is going on in Montpellier.
On January 10 2015 02:14 Brett wrote:
On January 10 2015 02:08 OtherWorld wrote:
On January 10 2015 02:06 JinDesu wrote:
On January 10 2015 02:05 OtherWorld wrote:
On January 10 2015 02:02 JinDesu wrote: For my understanding, Coulibaly was the third gunman at Charlie Hedbo, correct? They split up during the escape?
No. Coulibaly and the Kouachi brothers knew themselves, but only the brothers did the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Separately, Coulibaly killed a police officer the same day.
Ok that's very helpful for my understanding. So Coulibaly exposed himself after the event, I read somewhere earlier that he took the hostages to cover for the brothers - is that accurate?
Considering they knew each other and may (not confirmed) have been in contact via phone or something else, it is possible that Coulibaly tried to divert the forces chasing the brothers by taking hostages. It's not confirmed though, and since they're all dead we'll never know.
If they were in active contact, presumably it was by telephone, and authorities will be able to confirm this relatively easily by accessing the phones which, again presumably, will still be on the dead scum's bodies or amongst their other possessions.
I was talking about the reason why did Coulibaly took hostages
Well if you can actually confirm the fact that they were in contact, you can pretty confidently assume that that was at least a factor in Coulibaly's actions... What else would they have been discussing? ;p
On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote: So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly.
The paper takes everything and anything and tries to criticize it. Political lies, religious double standards, social issues. Everyone is criticized. There is always a shred of truth, but to be honest, I really dislike the publication. The government raises the idea of cutting costs of the education? You have a picture of him buttfucking a teacher (who says something sordid). The pope says literally anything? You have a priest getting a blow job from a kid and saying something vaguely related to the topic in question.
I understand the need for "counter-power", but truth to be told, most of the time, things are pretty OK in France, and we don't need such vulgar descriptions. By using systematically the most crude images for trivial topics (teachers are not going to get a raise this year? That's literally Francois Hollande buttfucking all of them) it reduces the effectiveness of the method when real serious topics come by. (Like, a terrorist attack for example?)
I prefer a more moderate (and constructive) critic when the problem is only moderate. Charlie is always in the extreme (and never constructive, apart from the fact that the topic gets discussed).
Charlie Hebdo is a satiric newspaper, made to make people laugh during tough times. They don't give a fuck about being constructive and they are right about it.
I think France 2 showed a different footage, which was bit better. Thanks though.
This footage looks edited
That too.
Well it's a footage provided by LeMonde, I don't know anything else about it
But just from that, theres so much time to kill those hostages even before they got there.
I cant see how you can call this a successful operation ..
i think there is something you don't understand
if he kills the hostage, the terrorist have no more value and they are instant killed by the police without any problem(until you want to have them absolutely alive like merah)
if they keep them(the hostage), the police have to find a good plan to kill the terrorist before he tries to kill the hostage at the moment he gets caught, in what the gign/bri/raid succesfuly did
the hostage at the supermarket were killed before the assault, i don't know how you can't call it a non succesful operation
I think France 2 showed a different footage, which was bit better. Thanks though.
This footage looks edited
That too.
Well it's a footage provided by LeMonde, I don't know anything else about it
But just from that, theres so much time to kill those hostages even before they got there.
I cant see how you can call this a successful operation ..
He had most probably blocked the only entrance... They were watching everything inside by CCTV it seems. Everything is done to distract and disorient the guy and make him think about something else than the hostages
I think France 2 showed a different footage, which was bit better. Thanks though.
This footage looks edited
That too.
Well it's a footage provided by LeMonde, I don't know anything else about it
But just from that, theres so much time to kill those hostages even before they got there.
I cant see how you can call this a successful operation ..
i think there is something you don't understand
if he kills the hostage, the terrorist have no more value and they are instant killed by the police without any problem(until you want to have them absolutely alive like merah)
if they keep them(the hostage), the police have to find a good plan to kill the terrorist before he tries to kill the hostage at the moment he gets caught, in what the gign/bri/raid succesfuly did
the hostage at the supermarket were killed before the assault, i don't know how you can't call it a non succesful operation
I think ur the one thats missing the point, he could have killed anyone he wanted with that much of a time. But he didnt. And could u source where u saw that all 4 hostages died before the operation?
I think France 2 showed a different footage, which was bit better. Thanks though.
This footage looks edited
That too.
Well it's a footage provided by LeMonde, I don't know anything else about it
But just from that, theres so much time to kill those hostages even before they got there.
I cant see how you can call this a successful operation ..
Theres a better version of the assault on Sky News and France 2 stream being rebroadcasted time to time. Also, the door they had to go in is pretty fucking tight and small. There would've been easily time to do anything before the police got inside..
I think France 2 showed a different footage, which was bit better. Thanks though.
This footage looks edited
That too.
Well it's a footage provided by LeMonde, I don't know anything else about it
But just from that, theres so much time to kill those hostages even before they got there.
I cant see how you can call this a successful operation ..
i think there is something you don't understand
if he kills the hostage, the terrorist have no more value and they are instant killed by the police without any problem(until you want to have them absolutely alive like merah)
if they keep them(the hostage), the police have to find a good plan to kill the terrorist before he tries to kill the hostage at the moment he gets caught, in what the gign/bri/raid succesfuly did
the hostage at the supermarket were killed before the assault, i don't know how you can't call it a non succesful operation
both times the terrorists had enough to kill all the hostages if they had wanted to...
I think France 2 showed a different footage, which was bit better. Thanks though.
This footage looks edited
That too.
Well it's a footage provided by LeMonde, I don't know anything else about it
But just from that, theres so much time to kill those hostages even before they got there.
I cant see how you can call this a successful operation ..
i think there is something you don't understand
if he kills the hostage, the terrorist have no more value and they are instant killed by the police without any problem(until you want to have them absolutely alive like merah)
if they keep them(the hostage), the police have to find a good plan to kill the terrorist before he tries to kill the hostage at the moment he gets caught, in what the gign/bri/raid succesfuly did
the hostage at the supermarket were killed before the assault, i don't know how you can't call it a non succesful operation
I think ur the one thats missing the point, he could have killed anyone he wanted with that much of a time. But he didnt. And could u source where u saw that all 4 hostages died before the operation?
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ifXom7P.jpg)
